The Rajasthan High Court has set aside charges framed against a private cricket coach in connection with the alleged abetment to suicide of a fellow coach. Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that no "direct, demonstrable link" was found between the actions of the accused and the tragic decision of the deceased.
The case involved Kapil Ram Singhani, who was charged by the trial court under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide), 500 (criminal defamation), 501 (printing defamatory material), and 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court’s decision came after carefully examining the records and evidence presented.
A complaint was initially lodged by Sandeep Singh, the brother of the deceased, Narendra Singh, who was also a private cricket coach. It was alleged that the deceased was harassed and threatened by the accused and others through messages in a WhatsApp group. This harassment was claimed to have driven Narendra Singh to commit suicide.
However, the High Court emphasized a critical factor:
"No suicide note was found near the deceased, making it difficult to establish the real motive behind the death."
Further, the witnesses presented during the investigation did not see the deceased committing suicide nor found anyone near the scene. They also clearly stated that neither the petitioner nor any co-accused were involved directly or indirectly.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Summons MoEFCC Secretary Over Delay In Oran Identification In Rajasthan
Highlighting the legal principle, the Court stated:
"To establish an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be a direct and demonstrable link between the accused’s actions and the suicide. Mere allegations of harassment, without concrete evidence of instigation, are insufficient."
Justice Garg relied on several Supreme Court judgments, including S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and M. Arjunan v. State, emphasizing that abetment of suicide requires clear instigation or active aid, not just harassment or discord.
The Court noted:
"Each person’s tolerance and reaction to stress varies, and mere allegations without strong proximate actions from the accused cannot constitute abetment."
The trial court had wrongly framed charges based merely on allegations without substantive evidence. Regarding the charges of defamation, the High Court found no proof that the accused had transmitted defamatory messages concerning the deceased:
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Dismisses 'Motivated' PIL Against NTPC-Rajasthan JV, Imposes ₹1.5 Lakh Cost
"In the absence of any derogatory communication linked to the petitioner, the foundation for charges under Sections 500 and 501 IPC is significantly weakened."
Finally, the Court concluded:
"Acts such as threats or harassment, without proof of direct participation or instigation leading to suicide, cannot sustain the charge of abetment."
Accordingly, the Rajasthan High Court quashed the trial court's order and discharged the petitioner from all charges under Sections 306, 500, 501, and 504 IPC. The stay petition related to the case was also disposed of.
This decision underlines the necessity for substantial evidence when alleging serious offences like abetment to suicide. It also reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to protecting individuals from baseless prosecution.
Title: Kapil Ram v State of Rajasthan
